AniInterview
Sorry, this movie sucks
Lucybespro
It is a performances centric movie
Tedfoldol
everything you have heard about this movie is true.
one-nine-eighty
Based on a Stephen King book, "Pet Semetry" is a horror film that looks at death, desire, reanimation, and why you should never build on top of an ancient Indian burial ground. A young 2.4 family move into the country, the new house they move into is right next to a big and dangerous road. They learn from their new neighbour that the road is deadly and has killed lots of local resident's pets over the years, and as such there is a local cemetery that was built by kids for their pets. While the family, minus the father, are away for a holiday tragedy strikes and the family cat is killed. The young father takes the cat to "Pet Semetry" and buries him, little does he know about the magic and witchcraft sown deep into this ancient Indian burial ground. The cat is reanimated, but is not like his former self, instead of being a loving cat; he's now feral and vicious. These are only the beginning of the problems though. Film's made out of Stephen King book's don't/didn't always make the grade on the silver screen, a lot of them never captured the tension of his writing and the movie adaptions ended up a little cheesy. This film however managed to do well, and doesn't detract massively from the book. I remember watching it as a youngster in the 90's and it was quite frightening. Watching it back closer to the age of 40 yo I can say that he film still manages to hold its own. The reason for this is because it's a solid story. Rather than get too deep into scientific reasons for events, or the history of the location, or even what form evil is taking in the film - it's handled from the point of view of the young father - we don't learn any more than he does, we just have to go with it. Nowadays there would likely be an entire additional hour looking at why reanimation affects different people differently, and why the evil is there in the first place. Granted, the book does delve into some of these things a little to build the tension, but in the film, there just isn't enough time to do so while maintaining the pace of events. So handling it the way it was generally works. The casting and acting is good, the young father is played by Dale Midkiff and is generally believable throughout. Denise Crosby plays he wife and does well, although I've never really been a fan for some reason (she has limited expressions and emotions - sorry). Fred Gwynne is the narrator and neighbour and drives the film forward, his performance is really good actually - sometimes hard on the ears to understand due to the random accent, but he's a rock in this film. The real winner is Miko Hughes as Gage Creed, the youngest child. He seems to be play sweet and creepy real well - I can see why he went on to have a decent career beyond this. Fair enough his lines are a little staged early on, but the switch in persona he manages later makes up for the cheesiness of the opening performance he brings. All in all this is a decent film, I can see why it's been rated highly amongst reviewers and I concur with them for the most part. For me this gets a 7 out of 10 - It's an all-around decent horror film, with a mix of emotions on display, despite being nearly 30 years old it manages to not look dated and out of place.
elisa_jenkins-65819
Everything about this movie is beyond creepy. From the initial premise (native American burial ground turned "sour"), the creepy child Gage, the alarming Trucks barreling down the road, the creepy girl, the creepy maid - and the cake taker for scariest human ever on film: the sister Zelda. That gruesome creature literally gave me nightmares for the better part of my childhood. Why the hell did my parents let me watch this movie?? UNGH, so darn terrifying. It's sad and kind of funny (like all of King's books), but this one is for me the most frightening by far. Ahhh...now I'm thinking about Zelda and her messed up back and skin ad bones body and I want to cry. The perfect horror film.
DrMiguel-DeLeon
It's usually unfair to compare a film to the original book, so that will not be attempted. Rather, taking Pet Sematary at face value, it's a good story: young doctor and family move to Maine, meet a wizened neighbour, but then get into trouble because the ground is sour. Like a number of King stories, the area/town itself contains evil forces, or supernatural forces that end up evil. In a late career role, Fred Gwynne does an excellent job with the New England accent, not always done well by others. Good use of an unspoken tension between husband and wife, but not a lot of exposition on why it's there. She should've been frigid, but they have two children....Stephen King stories, like the films of Harold Ramis, often suffer from the same debilitating problem: unraveling, cheesy plot and/or effects at the end. A toddler of about three years wielding a scalpel without nicking himself? An unidentifiable malaise coming over the doctor, causing very serious lapses in judgment? A giant Munster of a man unable to withstand fatal attack by said toddler? The old man's house inexplicably turning mouldy and rotten within hours?However, it's pretty good. The cheese factor makes it a good time, and not terribly deep. But then again, who really makes "deep" horror?
macguffin54
I don't see how anyone can actually think this is a GOOD movie; it is not. The acting is atrocious, except for Fred Gwynne who manages to recite his corny lines with sincerity but without overacting. Everyone else, Dale, Denise and especially the little girl are absolutely atrocious, as is the actor playing the dead guy (he overacts; he seems to think he's in a Gothic ghost story). I think this may very well be the worst acted Hollywood movie I have ever seen. Mary Lambert, best known as the director behind Madonna's Like a Prayer and Like a Virgin videos (among others), doesn't seem to understand how humans act or speak. Stephen King novels and scripts are very hard to adapt because his words and description that work on the page are ridiculous when spoken or acted out. A director needs to know when to be literal and when to apply use of "director's license" to make gibberish and nonsense seem believable. There are some fun scenes ("Now I want to play with you!) and, again, Fred Gwynne (Mr. Herman Munster and Francis Muldoon), is actually good. But someone better needs to take a run at this book and make into something as wonderful as the story deserves.
